Author Topic: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)  (Read 31014 times)


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #41 on: 02/06/2017 03:32 PM »
I can't find the SAA. I can find it listed in this document (21367, Low-Earth Orbit Commercial Services Development):

https://searchpub.nssc.nasa.gov/servlet/sm.web.Fetch/NonFed_Agreements_Active_Pub3_31_2014_AE.pdf?rhid=1000&did=1848490&type=released

According to the Aviation Week, it is unfunded.

I imagine that transportation to the ISS is provided by NASA free of charge.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2017 03:34 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #42 on: 02/06/2017 03:33 PM »
Eric's clearly been sat on this story for a while and had one ready to go :)

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/to-boost-commercial-activity-nasa-may-add-private-airlock-to-iss/

(more images and quotes).

Although still relevant, that article is actually from last year.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2017 03:42 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #43 on: 02/06/2017 04:09 PM »
Excellent news! A great use of the Node 3 Port CBM (since pretty much nothing else will fit there).

Good to see an increasing number of commercial modules being added to ISS - hopefully BEAM will become a permanent module too.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2017 04:09 PM by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #44 on: 02/06/2017 04:16 PM »
Here's a relevant presentation.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 555
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #45 on: 02/06/2017 06:10 PM »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9416
  • UK
  • Liked: 1696
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #46 on: 02/06/2017 07:46 PM »
I assuming this will be launched as an external Dragon payload.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4507
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1073
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #47 on: 02/06/2017 08:18 PM »
I assuming this will be launched as an external Dragon payload.
yes, NR applied for 2019 flight and is awaiting approval or denial with bump to available 2020 slot. The Dragon Trunk (ULC) slot will be decided at a later date.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • USA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #48 on: 02/06/2017 11:19 PM »
Boeing? Thats interesting, last I heard OrbitalATK would be building Bishop. Maybe Boeing figured this would be useful for their other station plans

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9614
  • Liked: 359
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #49 on: 02/06/2017 11:30 PM »
Boeing is fabricating the passive CBM.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4507
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1073
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #50 on: 02/07/2017 12:44 AM »
Boeing? Thats interesting, last I heard OrbitalATK would be building Bishop. Maybe Boeing figured this would be useful for their other station plans
Boeing is USOS Prime Contractor. Boeing will supply the PCBM and associated hardware and OA will build the remaining hardware and perform integration and testing.

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1352
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1506
  • Likes Given: 216
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #51 on: 02/07/2017 12:40 PM »
So let me see if I have this straight. Boeing / NanoRacks is getting $15,000,000 to essentially build a cap...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline ethan829

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #52 on: 02/07/2017 02:28 PM »
So let me see if I have this straight. Boeing / NanoRacks is getting $15,000,000 to essentially build a cap...
A cap that has to be berthed and unberthed many times and can contain payload dispensers. And I don't think the $15 million is just for construction, it's the overall project cost.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 344
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #53 on: 02/07/2017 02:42 PM »
So let me see if I have this straight. Boeing / NanoRacks is getting $15,000,000 to essentially build a cap...

If you had any idea of the requirements that go into it and what it takes to meet them, you'd see that $15M is really not a lot of money.  This adds a new pressurized element to ISS, and it's being designed to be removed, replaced, and reconfigured several times.

If you're into clothing for ISS, there's a new shield going up soon that is colloquially referred to as the "bow tie."  That goes hand-in-hand with the cummerbund that's already up there.

All we need is a monocle and some tails, and we're all set!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #54 on: 02/07/2017 05:19 PM »
So let me see if I have this straight. Boeing / NanoRacks is getting $15,000,000 to essentially build a cap...

Nanoracks isn't getting funding from NASA. It's their own money. It's an unfunded SAA.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2017 02:11 AM by yg1968 »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6373
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5955
  • Likes Given: 1714
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #55 on: 09/27/2017 07:23 AM »
Quote
Jeff Manber discussing NanoRacks’ commercial airlock plans; notes it’s “close to be manifested” for launch to ISS in 2019. #IAC2017

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/912855075109855232

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4507
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1073
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #56 on: 09/27/2017 03:31 PM »
So let me see if I have this straight. Boeing / NanoRacks is getting $15,000,000 to essentially build a cap...

Nanoracks isn't getting funding from NASA. It's their own money. It's an unfunded SAA.
Nanoracks pays Boeing to build Bishop

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8592
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3492
  • Likes Given: 824
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #57 on: 09/27/2017 08:54 PM »
Nanoracks having their own crew on the ISS would be a watershed moment, I think.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #58 on: 09/28/2017 03:28 AM »
Nanoracks having their own crew on the ISS would be a watershed moment, I think.

If the pace of deployables keeps picking up, they'll need it because NASA doesn't want astronauts to be part time warehouse monkeys when they have maintenance and science to do.

Which would mean a Nanoracks astronaut would essentially be the outsourced doorman/janitor for ISS. Not that is such a bad thing, and there are people willing to kill for such a slot, even if they have to shack up in BEAM...

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #59 on: 09/29/2017 03:20 PM »
I think a lot off people have missed the bad part of the current news release about the bishop airlock.
When it was first published, at the 2016 ISS R&D conference if I'm not mistaken, it was planned for launch in 2018. Now it is planned for 2019.
The bishop airlock and the Bartolomeo exposed payload platform were compeating for the trunk space of two SpX Dragon launches. Apparently Bartolomeo got the first slot and Bishop the second. I'm wondering the reasoning behind this, because Bishop is needed for the full utilisation of Bartolomeo.

Edit: It were SpX19 and SpX21 were Bishop and Bartolomeo were compeating for. Both were planed for NET 2019.
IDA-3 was planned for SpX-16, possibly the complete schedule is altered.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2017 09:28 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Tags: